The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prospects for Clinical Application of Electronic-Nose Technology to Early Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Culture and Sputum
Abstract
Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) staining for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) is time-consuming and operator dependent and lacks sensitivity. A new method is urgently needed. We investigated the potential of an electronic nose (EN) (gas sensor array) comprising 14 conducting polymers to detect different Mycobacterium spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the headspaces of cultures, spiked sputa, and sputum samples from 330 culture-proven and human immunodeficiency virus-tested TB and non-TB patients. The data were analyzed using principal-component analysis, discriminant function analysis, and artificial neural networks. The EN differentiated between different Mycobacterium spp. and between mycobacteria and other lung pathogens both in culture and in spiked sputum samples. The detection limit in culture and spiked sputa was found to be 1 × 10 4 mycobacteria ml −1 . After training of the neural network with 196 sputum samples, 134 samples (55 M. tuberculosis culture-positive samples and 79 culture-negative samples) were used to challenge the model. The EN correctly predicted 89% of culture-positive patients; the six false negatives were the four ZN-negative and two ZN-positive patients. The specificity and sensitivity of the described method were 91% and 89%, respectively, compared to culture. At present, the reasons for the false negatives and false positives are unknown, but they could well be due to the nonoptimized system used here. This study has shown the ability of an electronic nose to detect M. tuberculosis in clinical specimens and opens the way to making this method a rapid and automated system for the early diagnosis of respiratory infections.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Electronic Nose: Current Status and Future Trends
Röck, F., Barsan, N., & Weimar, U. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr068121q · Cited by 1,437
Advanced methods of plant disease detection. A review
Martinelli, F., Scalenghe, R., Davino, S., Panno, S., Scuderi, G., Ruisi, P., Villa, P., Stroppiana, D., Boschetti, M., Goulart, L. R., et al. (2015) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-014-0246-1 · Cited by 964
An electronic nose in the discrimination of patients with asthma and controls
Dragonieri, S., Schot, R., Mertens, B. J. A., Le Cessie, S., Gauw, S. A., Spanevello, A., Resta, O., Willard, N. P., Vink, T. J., Rabe, K. F., et al. (2007) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.05.043 · Cited by 451
Newton, S. M., Brent, A. J., Anderson, S., Whittaker, E., & Kampmann, B. (2008) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(08)70182-8 · Cited by 480
Advances in Electronic-Nose Technologies Developed for Biomedical Applications
Wilson, A. D., & Baietto, M. (2011) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s110101105 · Cited by 400
Metadata
- Authors
- Fend, R., Kolk, A. H. J., Bessant, C., Buijtels, P., Klatser, P. R., & Woodman, A. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2039-2045
- ISSN
- 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-660X
- OpenAlex
- W2110001112
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospects for Clinical Application of Electronic-Nose Technology to Early Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Culture and Sputum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.01591-05
- The paper
- Fend, R., Kolk, A. H. J., Bessant, C., Buijtels, P., Klatser, P. R., & Woodman, A. C. (2006). Prospects for Clinical Application of Electronic-Nose Technology to Early Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Culture and Sputum. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01591-05
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.